4/29/2014

In an announcement today, Judicial Watch revealed that they received 41 new Benghazi-related State Department documents in response to a FOIA request. One email was particularly revealing.

White House officials consciously planned to spin the successful 2012 jihadi attack on the Benghazi diplomatic compound as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islam video, according to a new email exposed by the public-interest law firm Judicial Watch.

The Sept. 14 email by Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s chief foreign policy spokesman, described the public relations goals for a planned briefing of a top official — Susan Rice — who was scheduled to appear Sept. 16 on five Sunday talk-shows.

She was invited on the shows to explain the September 11 attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. The subject of the email was “PREP CALL with Susan.”

The goal of the appearances, said Rhodes, is “to convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad; [and] to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, not a broader failure of policy.”

As a reminder, here is what Rice claimed on the Sunday morning shows,

Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo.

In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

It would appear there is no way to spin any of this. Not only is this problematic for the president, but it is for Hillary Clinton, too, who was secretary of state at the time. The security of the embassy fell to her.

She was implementing Obama’s foreign policy in Libya, following his decision to help kill the country’s leader in 2010. State Department officials have testified that senior officials insisted prior to the attack that there was no need for extra security. The insistence was caused by the White House’s judgement that the Obama-backed Libya government was keeping peace.

Also, if Hillary makes a run in 2016, this should be a serious problem for her.

The story only gets legs into 2016 if the pressure gets high enough so that Team Obama and Team Hillary start trying to throw each other under the bus first. Right now, both sides are sticking together, but if it gets to the point where the White House and State Department are pointing fingers at each other (or the current State Department and the White House are pointing fingers at Hillary), then the media will be forced to acknowledge a story they’re simply going to try pretend isn’t happening over the next 48 hours, in hopes it fades into the background.

But it will be up to House Republicans to push the issue, and as of late, the main revelations haven’t come from Darrell Issa’s committee or others on Capitol Hill, but from Larry Klayman’s group. That’s not very inspiring when it comes to the odds of House GOP members and their staff moving the Benghazi probe forward on their own.

Sigh.
You’re stuck on what happened, when magic user A did not say the incantation magic user B thinks she should have used.

The only thing that matters is what the Administration and DoS did/did not do before and after the attack. If there’s no scandal there, then Administration spin afterwards doesn’t matter, and if there was scandal there, it matters even less. The only important paragraph in this post was the last one.

Blatant lies… Clinton standing in front of four coffins, telling families of dead heroes AND THE NATION that we’ll get that bastard who made the video, redaction of all salient facts… You might want to rethink post #16.

Where is there anything in here that says that Benjamin Rhodes did not think that what he wanted to get out in public was not the truth??

The newly released e-mail, sent at about 8:09 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012, indicated he wants to

“underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

When did the word “underscore” acquire the secondary meaning of “tell a lie?”

Now it could still be consistent with the idea that what he wants to get out in public is a lie, but a second e-mail he sent that night, one hour and twenty five minutes later, is not so easy to square with the idea of it being a lie.

That e-mail, says in part:

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress from people who are not particularly informed. We need to have the capacity to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened misimpression.

The White House (and Democrats) are not defending this by saying they accepted disinformation that came from the CIA. That nothing has been done about this is the real scandal.

It is beinbg claimed today that Michael Mullen gave tetsimony that he didn’t know where the idea that a video was responsible originated from. II think that is a lie and he knows there were a variety of sources SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE that indicated that.

The New York Times has written (last December) that even their reporter heard a video was the cause from the attackers themselves.

In earlier versions of the talking points the CIA had written about “intelligene partners” and this idea was also coming from people in the L:ibyan government.

Now, N.B. if in fact this originated outsid ethe CIA and the White House, Mullen would know in fact where it had come from.

I suppose Mullen can claim he never asked the CIA analysts where they got their ideas from.

And there’s also an e-mail from David Petraus where he asks if they leave out the message to the Cairo embassy they might as well drop the whole thing. Explanation: He had bene briefed that Cairo had been warned about a demonstration about a video, and that this could have been an indicator that maybe an attack could come at Benghazi.

The CIA actually never mentioned the word “video” in ther talking points, only demonstration. They were kind of smart.

There was also an e-amil from Tommy Vietor that also indicated the Whote House beleived this to be the truth:

There is massive disinformation out there, particularly with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions and breiefings. So I think this is a response to not onky a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

That it was tightly held is a given, in that this email was not provided to the Congress when it was originally asked for, and was heavily redacted when they finally got it. Only Judicial Watch, in response to a FOIA lawsuit, has been provided with the original email, which is why we are talking about Ben Rhodes today.

SF, are you confusing the Acting Dir of the CIA, Michael J. Morell, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mullen?

I might. I didn’t have that thing I read in front of me when I read it.

P.S. I checked.

National Review’s Morning Jolt says today that former CIA Director Mike Morrell testified earlier this month that he had no idea where the story about avideo protest came from when when he sww Rice make the claim on television.

Though there was some dispute over the manner of the attack, former CIA deputy director Mike Morell testified earlier this month that he had no idea where the story about a video protest came from when he saw Rice make the claim on television.

We need to see what his actual tetsimony was.

Morell did testify (at his most recent Congressional appearance IIRC) that he did not believe that the video story was something that “his” analysts would have come up with, or would have advanced.

That would make sense. It didn’t come from the Pentagon, and it didn’t come from the Satgte Department.

It came from the CIA and it wasn’t made up oout of whole cloth in the White House.

It came from the CIA and it wasn’t made up oout of whole cloth in the White House.

SF, you’ve got that exactly backwards.
Morell specifically said that the video line did not come from the CIA, and the email from Rhodes seems to suggest, and most people seem to believe, that this was made up out of whole cloth at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Benjamin Rhodes wanted to get the “news” out to the entire world that the attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous” and could not have been predicted because it happened only as a result of the video, and that had become well known only that day.

He might have wanted to do that, but his “news” was in conflict with all the known evidence of the event supplied by people “on the ground”.
It was a political lie, advanced to cover up a policy lie (Detroit is alive, and Al-Queda is dead), and to calm the storm before the election.

Morell specifically said that the video line did not come from the CIA,

I think that’s a lie. But I noticed taht in their written drafts of the “talking points” the word video was never mentioned, but only “protests at the U.s. Embassy at Caito.”

And that the attacks (later changed to protests) in Benghazi were “spontaneously inspired” by them.

Of course everybody by the end of that week thought the protests were about the video.

The Cairo Embassy had thought that was what the protests were going to be about and tweeted taht the U.S. was nt responsibe for it.

Do you imagine, for one second, that was aimed at
a U.S. audience?

Those tweets went out before anythinbg had happened in Benghazi.

and the email from Rhodes seems to suggest, and most people seem to believe, that this was made up out of whole cloth at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

He was sending these emails (not the one released now, but the ones released last year) to people in the State Department, people in the CIA. If this was all news to them, wouldn’t they have been surprised?

The CIA said that the attacks were spontaneous and inspired by what happened in Cairo. Not the White House.

The reason the CIA said that, was in order that they should not be tasked to look for who was behind it. They did not expect the White House would run with this information and explode the claim.

Usually with an Arab street protest denouncing America we see pictures and videos. With the alleged Benghazi protests against the video I have seen nothing, although it is certainly possible I may have missed something.

As part of Morell’s testimony on Wednesday, the former acting and deputy CIA director acknowledged that he overruled the guidance of the top CIA officer in Libya at the time. That official told Morell the attack was not an “escalation of protests,” but Morell said he had to weigh that against analysts who concluded the opposite. He ultimately went with the analysts — whose assessment later turned out to be flawed — saying the chief of station’s report was not “compelling” and was based on loose evidence.

…Another said Morell either still has no idea what happened that night, or he is covering for someone. “Human intelligence takes precedence over everything else and he had no better intelligence than multiple reports from credible sources coming from the ground that night,” one operator said.

Here we have a CIA source specifically saying that they relied on SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE:

A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as the talking points were being crafted.

“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was one piece amid several streams of information.”

One of the former intelligence officials said the Libya station chief’s assessment was being weighed against media reports from the ground in Benghazi that quoted witnesses as saying there had been a protest. Analysts at the CIA, the source said, also were weighing it against reporting by other intelligence divisions, including the National Security Agency.

“The chief of station in Tripoli who was 600 or 700 miles away from the attacks wouldn’t necessarily have the only view of what actually went on in Benghazi,” that former official said.

SF, I just watched a reviewing of Morell’s testimony (4/2) on Fox News Special Report today where he made the statement that the video was not something his analysts would have believed in. He had earlier said that he did not insert the video meme into the talking points.

The people in the State Department were mainly puzzled about what the purpose of the exercise was. Victoria Nuland wanted to know: Was this unclassified or classified testimony? She was told this was talking points for the committee.

Jacob J. Sullivan said some of the statements below are new to me. Tommy Vietor said there was massive disinformation out there.

SF, I just watched a reviewing of Morell’s testimony (4/2) on Fox News Special Report today where he made the statement that the video was not something his analysts would have believed in. He had earlier said that he did not insert the video meme into the talking points.

Nobody did. It’s not in there.

But that doesn’t mean it was being told to other people in the government orally.

I noticed some time ago that there is not any mention of the video in anything written by the CIA. I thought that was very devious of them.

Sammy, do you have an interest at all in learning what happened on that 9/11 in Benghazi? Do you want to know who the direct actors and decision makers were, and who the subsequent players are who’ve tried to cover up the truth? Do you care to examine the extent of illegality and immorality that some affiliated with this administration have apparently gone to to do that? Or do you just plan to continue to put your fingers in you ears and sing “la la la” because your worldview about this issue is collapsing?

Here’s where I stand, and it seems where more than a few media people are now standing (particularly when you watch the confrontation between Carney and ABC today):
This was a terrorist attack, planned in advance – otherwise they got very lucky in their placement of the mortar tubes which remarkably were spot-on to their targets;
That there are no contemporary reports of a street demonstration in Benghazi would seem to confirm that the “incident” was not spontaneous;
All contemporaneous accounts report an attack;
The CIA analysts report an attack;
The State Dept. and White House waffle on any use of the phrase “terrorist activity” in relation to Benghazi;
Talking points get passed back and forth but the paternity of the video meme is a great mystery though the CIA and FBI deny that it came from them;
Finally, nine-months (or more) after a subpoena for ALL Benghazi-related communications, the Congress finally sees an unredacted memo from Ben Rhodes to all the other players in the five-talking heads-media shows circus that lo-and-behold mentions the video, a video that was only briefly and in highly edited form seen on alJazeera on-line and hardly remarked upon in the ME – and not at all in Libya;
The video maker is then rounded up in the middle of the night on an alleged fraud probation violation;
The SecState condemns the video while standing in front of the caskets of the fallen from Benghazi, repeating the lie of the video meme.

We still need to discover who it was in the chain-of-command between Ben Rhodes and the President that originated the video meme, and how did Hillary get the message just prior to the time-stamp on this memo that she mentioned in an interview?
Did it come from the Oval Office, or from a senior adviser with access to that office?

The American People have been lied to, and that type of offense was cited by the House Committee on the Judiciary in its Impeachment write-up in the Watergate matter as one of the points of offense by the President, and it is no less a valid accusation today against this President in this matter.

Since your administration claims that “winter” caused a slowdown in our economy, shouldn’t we reduce the emissions regulations on industry in order to help “warm” the planet, thereby improving the economy ?

BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION on the anniversary of 9/11, an attack in Libya takes the life of our ambassador there and three other Americans. And a new attack in Afghanistan today leaves four U.S. service members dead.

As the anti-American protests over a U.S.-made anti-Muslim film spread across the Arab world from Africa to Afghanistan to Australia…

But does Susan Rice mention a “film” or a “video?”

….But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy–

SUSAN RICE: – sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

Mind control rays? No. But very clever at getting the idea across while leaving no fingerprints.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

While the video is not in the talking points, the idea this was not pre-planned is.

But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of– of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s– that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear–we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

On Fox News Sunday:

But what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the Internet of a very hateful very offensive video that has offended many people around the world.

Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is absolutely reprehensible and never justified. But, in fact, there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. But there is no question that what we have seen in the past, with things like satanic verses, with the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, there have been — such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.

On ABC’s “This Week:

[says there is an FBI investigation] But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.

On CNN’s “State of the Union:

RICE: Well, Candy, first of all, let’s recall what has happened in the last several days. There was a hateful video that was disseminated on the internet. It had nothing to do with the United States government and it’s one that we find disgusting and reprehensible. It’s been offensive to many, many people around the world.

That sparked violence in various parts of the world, including violence directed against western facilities including our embassies and consulates. That violence is absolutely unacceptable, it’s not a response that one can ever condone when it comes to such a video. And we have been working very closely and, indeed, effectively with the governments in the region and around the world to secure our personnel, secure our embassy, condemn the violent response to this video.

And, frankly, we’ve seen these sorts of incidents in the past. We’ve seen violent responses to “Satanic Verses.” We’ve seen violent responses to the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in an evil way. So this is something we’ve seen in the past, and we expect that it’s possible that these kinds of things could percolate into the future. What we’re focused on is securing our personnel, securing our facilities.

Susan Rice’s obvious lying on the Sunday shows was, well obvious. We have been talking about why she was “the one” chosen to lie ever since that Sunday, and dozens of subsequent times on this blog. It was her uncomfortable canned speech on the full Ginsburg that Sunday that tipped everybody off that a cover-up was afoot. Where have you been?

“No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?” Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell’s edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then.”

Nobody asks: “What cable to Cairo???

Filling in the blanks, this was obviously, some cable that prompted the Cairo embassy to issue those tweets.

(When Davod Petraeus wrote that, there were numerous citations in the taking points, later deleted, of “warnings” the CIA had given the State Department of possible attacks but not the cable to Cairo! (the cable, that is, that I have deduced was sent.)

The CIA-written “talking points” have the idea that the attack/demonstration in Benghazi was spontaneous and inspired by the earlier protest in Cairo, but it does not say that the earlier attack in cairo was about a video.

They said that somewhere else, in a still secret cable, and orally.

Some people, though, were being very careful not to repeat the video story.

Oh. Sam now says he’s been deducing and “filling in the blanks”. Thankfully I have an electric oven.

You can only do so much, but some you can do, and that the CIA sent a cable to the Cairo embassy on or shortly before September 11, 2012, warning there would be a demonstration about a video, is a fairly safe assumption.

They must have gotten that idea from somewhere – most like the cable that David Petraeus mentions.

And the fact that he mentions it in an email about Benghazi indicates that it had been linked to the Benghazi attacks – that is, this was, the closest warning that the CIA had issued about a
Benghazi attack.

The CIA “warnings” had been deleted by that point, and Petraeus is disappointed that not even the best warning – the one in the cable to the Cairo Embassy, presumably about the “fact” that a demonstration was going to take place due to the video – was in there.

I’d believe Romney before I’d believe anything from these liars, Sammy. They wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on their narrow asses

There’s nothing wrong with what Romney said.

The Cairo Embassy had sent these tweets disclaiming any connection with the video. They re-endorsed it after the attack in Cairo.

And then for hours said nothing else. so this was standing as the reaction.

Romney wanted to issue a statement – however he had made a decision not to make any campaign statements on September 11.

Finally, he prepared a statement, embargoed for midnight, but released around 10 pm to the press. Hearing of this, Hillary Clinton issued some sattement, and I think also disavowed what the Caiiro embassy had tweeted and said. This was around 10:30 pm, and became public before Mitt Romney’s statement.

At that point the attack in Benghazi had started, (the consultate notified Tripoli it was under attack at 9:40 Libyan time, 3:40 eastern time) but nobody outside the government knew about it. They only knew about the attack in Cairo.

It was only the next day, September 12th that an announcement was made, and it was not a complete announcement at first.

First, the State Department anounced that one American was dead, and only later that four Americans were dead and one was the Ambassador to Libya.